GLENN ALLEN BEECHAM V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GLENN ALLEN BEECHAM,
UNPUBLISHED
March 24, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
CITY OF DETROIT and DARINE JEFFERSON,
No. 196317
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-525936 NI
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Gribbs, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
While fleeing police on foot, attempting to avoid apprehension for an attempted breaking and
entering committed by plaintiff and another person, plaintiff was struck and injured by an automobile
owned by the City of Detroit and operated by defendant police officer Jefferson, who as it happened
was not involved in the police pursuit of the suspects. Plaintiff brought this tort action, seeking damages
for his injuries. However, the circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants on the
basis of the wrongful-conduct rule. Orzel v Scott Drug Co, 449 Mich 550, 558; 537 NW2d 208
(1995). Plaintiff’s appeal by right is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
If this were a suit based on contract, such as an insurance policy, a different result might
properly obtain. See Davis v DAIIE, 356 Mich 454; 96 NW2d 760 (1959). For tort purposes,
however, the wrongful-conduct rule bars liability if plaintiff ’s criminal conduct was a proximate cause of
his injuries. Orzel, supra at 564-565. Here, although plaintiff’s criminal offense was technically
completed when he and his friend ran from the building that they had attempted to break and enter, see
People v Wise, 134 Mich App 82, 93; 351 NW2d 255 (1984), his act of fleeing from the pursuing
police officers was integrally related to his criminal conduct and most certainly a contributing cause of his
injuries. Indeed, plaintiff’s quick escape from the crime scene hampered his ability to exercise due care
for the safety of himself and others. Furthermore, the important public policies underlying the wrongful
conduct rule compel the conclusion in this case that plaintiff not be entitled to recover from defendants
for his injuries. See Orzel, supra at 559-560. Accordingly, we hold that the wrongful-conduct rule
was properly invoked to bar this action.
-1
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.